The Rise (Again) of Nations

Forerunner, "WorldWatch," September-October 2008

British Prime Minister Henry Temple (1784-1865), known as Lord Palmerston, remarked in the House of Commons on March 1, 1848: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." In so many words, his statement encapsulates the age-old concept of the nation-state in relation to other nation-states. Nations are composed of large populations living within definable borders and having common governance, aims, and interests. Nations exist because humanity has splintered into hundreds of massive interest groups, each with its own idea of what is best for it.

However, since at least the Tower of Babel, it has been a dream of mankind to erase the lines that divide these human groups and create a one-world order. Empires—from Babylon to the Third Reich—have tried to impose worldwide rule and usher in a utopian Golden Age. In the last century, the idea of a new international system rose again in the League of Nations, in the United Nations, and finally in the post-Cold War New World Order, but each time an international union has been tried, those pesky nations and their interests have dashed it all to pieces.

And it is happening again.

Since the Cold War's end, globalism has been the watchword of international relations and economics. This has been made possible in part by the fact that, with the Soviet Union consigned to history's recycle bin, the United States has emerged as the lone superpower in the world. Being an economic powerhouse and in most cases benign in its foreign ambitions, America has created and fostered an environment of international amity and cooperation. To be sure, not all has been the proverbial sunshine and roses, but the U.S. has pushed and presided over many international institutions and initiatives, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, NATO, the G7, various military coalitions, and countless U.N. agencies.

Yet, cracks are appearing in the foundations of the present international system. Both of its main pilings—economic prosperity and peaceful relations—have been undermined to the point that the whole structure faces collapse. As Lord Palmerston clearly implied, when national interests are at stake, nations have a solemn duty to see to their own first—and both their allies and enemies be hanged!

The current economic woes and a handful of conflicts and foreign policy maneuvers reveal the instabilities of today's globalism. On the financial side, even with all the meetings of world leaders and the tremendous media coverage of the international economy, in reality only a rudimentary framework of a truly global system exists. While there is interconnectivity and cooperation, the world's sovereign nations are the system's players, each looking out for their own interests, using their own currencies, levying their own taxes, charging their own tariffs, and making their own deals.

In the current world credit crunch, each nation will act in its own best interests, and if, for instance, the cooperative efforts of the G20 put it at a disadvantage, it will simply not comply with and/or withdraw from the regime. No sovereign nation will take the chance of acting for the good of the world if it will be hurt by such altruism.

Something like this occurred in Europe when the credit crisis broke in early October. On October 12, the eurozone nations held a summit to coordinate their efforts to combat the swiftly developing financial disaster. Brussels, the hub of EU bureaucracy, did little but wring its hands and say that it lacked the power to make any significant moves. Picking up the slack were the finance ministries of the individual nations in Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, and the capitals of other sovereign states. They used the resources at their disposal to shore up their own lending institutions, protecting their own national interests. In other words, even within the EU, the international system began to splinter along nationalistic lines.

In terms of foreign policy, nationalism is also making a comeback. This can be seen most easily, perhaps, in Russia's recent maneuverings under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He and President Dmitri Medvedev are rebuilding an anti-U.S. bloc from the handful of non-aligned socialist governments around the world, particularly Venezuela and Cuba. The Kremlin is heralding Medvedev's upcoming trip to Latin America as a means for Russia to expand its economic markets in the region, but it is an open secret that his stops in Havana and Caracas will seek to coordinate the three nations' military and political alliance. It is no coincidence that Russia and Venezuela recently announced a joint naval exercise in Caribbean waters, a gesture of defiance toward U.S. hegemony.

In August, Russia invaded Georgia's sovereign territory, quickly overcoming the smaller nation's defenses and demanding that Georgia allow its breakaway province of South Ossetia to go its own way—that is, into Russia's embrace. Beyond rhetoric, the U.S. and NATO did nothing material to help their ally in the Caucasus region, revealing themselves to be practically incapable of unified action. Each member state criticized or mollified Russia in accordance with its own interests.

If we add into the mix Iran's belligerence, India's increasing confidence and autonomy, and China's expanding power, the world is devolving, as it were, into a dangerous, multi-polar configuration. A new Cold War—head-to-head, non-military confrontation among the world's most powerful nations—seems to be brewing. Hostilities of this kind can quickly turn into shooting wars.

In this vein, we would do well to remember Revelation 17 and 18, which contain several references to kings and nations, not cooperative international bodies. Perhaps the world is shaping up to fulfill these long-awaited prophecies.

Liberty and Justice for All?

Over the last two days, two branches of the American government—the judicial and the legislative—proved again either that they have no idea what this nation's Founding Fathers meant when they drafted, debated, and ratified the Constitution, or that they simply do not care what it says. Activities like these are what provide fodder for conspiracy theorists to imagine grand plots whose aims are to subjugate Americans to a New World Order. Whether there are such schemes is moot, but the freedoms of American citizens are being trampled and obliterated, it seems, on a weekly basis by our own government.

To the Patriot Act (a collusion of the executive and legislative branches, with the approval, so far, of the judicial) and to the broad discretionary powers of the President (most of which have been assumed through executive orders and without Congressional or judicial oversight), we can add our governments' right to condemn private property for just about any cause. Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures of property, can be ignored by local governments—and by implication, state and federal governments—if they can show that new development on the condemned land will economically benefit the community.

This decision means that, if your city fathers decide that a shopping mall or factory or sports arena will provide more revenue to the city than what you pay in property taxes, they have every right to force you to sell your home, farm, or business to them for "fair" compensation. It used to be—and is still the law in many locales—that government could only condemn property for necessary infrastructure—roads, sewers, airports, power plants, etc. Now, however, if a private citizen pays $1,000/year in property taxes, but a strip mall on the same land will bring in $10,000/year—and add a score of new employees and lots of customers who will pay local sales taxes—the citizen's only option is to take whatever price the city offers for his place.

Who knows if this will be the extent of a government's use of this new power? What if the local city council, dominated by one or the other party, wants to make matters difficult for the rival party, and uses this power like a club? It is not out of the realm of possibility that a government could also use this power to force "undesirables"—the poor, members of another race, etc.—out of a certain sector of the city. Or perhaps it could be brought to bear on a "cult" whose ownership of a piece of property in the city is an embarrassment to the "orthodox" community. Do we really want to open the floodgates to these possibilities?

The second anti-Constitutional activity this week involved the House of Representatives approving the wording of a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to punish those who desecrate the American flag. It would read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." This is the sixth time since 1995 that the House has approved this amendment, and the Senate has twice voted it down. If passed, it would overturn a 1989 Supreme Court decision that found that the First Amendment protects flag burning. Analysts believe this attempt will also be defeated, as supporters can muster only 65 senators, two short of the 67 needed for passage.

Flag burning is an emotional issue, and since 9-11, it has gained support across the country. In fact, 9-11 was played like a trump card during the debate: "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). "Ask them, and they will tell you: Pass this amendment." Nevertheless, the First Amendment is clear in its protection of speech, even rebellious or defiant speech: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ." The Founders wanted the people of this country to have the power to speak their minds, especially when the government seemed to be getting too big for is breeches.

The Court has found in several instances that "speech" covers symbolic actions—actions deliberately done to make a political point. Burning the flag, then, is along the same lines as burning or hanging a political figure in effigy. Clearly, both of these acts are offensive, but as Americans, we are free to offend and to be offended. Would not the likes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson laugh us to scorn if they knew today's Americans are so "sensitive" that they would attempt to amend the Constitution to avoid being offended? In days long past, private citizens would "have a quiet talk" with anyone who would dare to be so offensive against our national symbol. And that would be that.

Do we really want the government to institutionalize authority over disagreeable speech or symbolic actions? If the Congress can punish for desecration of the flag, what other kinds of "speech" could they someday ban or penalize using this amendment as a precedent? How about banning certain books, either political or religious, that they find offensive? Perhaps it could be "offensive" remarks that oppose abortion, promiscuity, or homosexuality (Canada already has such a law against the last)? Or maybe Congress might want to impose its authority on churches who offend by not conforming to "orthodox" practices? All the sea needs is one tiny crack in the dike.

It is ironic that the recent hubbub over the Pledge of Allegiance centered on the words "under God." It seems that we need a national debate on "with liberty and justice for all" instead.